Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")

To: "Phillip G. Gross" <pgross at NRI.Reston.VA.US>
Subject: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")
From: zsu at NISC.SRI.COM (Zaw-Sing Su)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 14:57:39 PST
Cc: ietf at venera.isi.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 05 Feb 90 23:46:39 -0500. <9002052346.aa04023@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US>
Posted-date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 14:57:39 PST

Not to hamper the ongoing interesting discussion on "Intra-AS Routing 
Standards", I would like to ask a related question to which I must have 
missed the answer somewhere along.  I see the need for standardizing 
IGP, or IGPs, but not clear to me why should there be one, and only one, 
RECOMMENDED IGP, which all routers are expected to implement.  

Zaw-Sing

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")
  - From: vcerf

References:
- Intra-AS Routing Standards
  - From: Phillip G. Gross

Prev by Date: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Next by Date: Re: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Previous by thread: Intra-AS Routing Standards
Next by thread: Re: Why One Standard IGP? (was "Intra-AS Routing Standards")
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.